W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: text equivalents for multimedia

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 07:20:38 -0500 (EST)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003070715580.24537-100000@tux.w3.org>
Anne,

glad to hear that SMIL doesn't seem like such a big monster anymore. Actually
itis als supported in some HTML authoring tools, and when XHTML and
namespaces are understood by browsers it will make sense to mix the two
together (along with other goodies like animated SVG) and have extremely
powerful multimedia which is (relatively) easily made accessible.

The cost for streaming media is at both ends in that you have to keep a
conection open. The idea is that rather than downloading a huge file you are
only goingto download as much o it as you need. So for taking a single song
it is a question of whether you want it to start quicker or finish downloadng
quicker. Its real value is in broadcasting things live, or things which are
very long.

(There is also a cost in buying software that allows you to provide
streaming, and as far as I know there are not yet any free products that do
it.)

cheers

Charles

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Anne Pemberton wrote:

[snip]  
  	Seems SMIL could be a worthwhile investment of some teachers' time to
  learn it and make it grow... 
  
  	What would be the problem with having full-screen streaming video? Too
  much bandwidth and cost? Is the cost at the server end or the user end? 
  
[snip]
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2000 07:20:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT